Inclusion Programs Issues - Essay Example

INCLUSION Introduction: Inclusion has been considered as a viable route to impart appropriate education to the children with disabilities. Educators and philosophers are divided in supporting this concept of inclusion. Keeping the postulates of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) in consonance with general norms, several changes are taking place in the education system. Conventional methods of teaching are getting slowly obsolete. Introducing new vistas attract the entire participants of educational system and cover almost all students in addition to pupils with disabilities. Various methods and procedures adopted in the new systems such as co-teaching enable the teaching population to create more and more modalities to fit students in proportion to their IQ. This naturally is an additional benefit both for students and teaching sector. For inclusion, the assistance of special educators are deemed essential to manage the classroom situation, as the students with disabilities are to be handled in a very careful manner in such a way that the normal students are not made to veer from their course of studies as well as the students with disabilities are given due attention. Co-teaching methods are under constant research. The effectiveness in its completeness can not yet be ascertained as far as this model is concerned. But many a benefit are found to surface by co-teaching process. Co-teaching is a model in which a team of teachers get themselves involved in the development of heterogeneous learners. The team normally does not accept mere inclusion of students with disabilities in a general classroom. The team members assess, evaluate, and locate the actual needs of individual students and act after planning to meet their needs. The co-operative teaching methods have five forms of manifestations. They are: - 1. Lead and support. 2. Station teaching. 3. Parallel teaching. 4. Alternative teaching and 5. Team teaching. CREDIBILITY OF INCLUSION: Inclusion programs for students with disabilities in regular class rooms do not give any tailor-made solutions. However, the inclusion of disabled students in regular classrooms are widely gaining support among all concerned. Several factors are to be taken into account in the philosophy of inclusion. Some are: Age-appropriate placement, Social integration, Curricular expectations, Staff development, Team collaboration and classroom management. ( Kathey Kearney, 1996, “Highly Gifted Children in Full Inclusion Classrooms”, ). If and when a student with disability happens to be a disruption to a regular class, the administration must need to act in an extremely cautious and efficient manner. While giving much weight to the smooth running of the class, the legal support available for a parent to get his/her kid continued in the regular class room must also have to be considered without causing any damage to the general education process. Appraisal of parents with the fact that individual needs of the students with disabilities are keenly observed and strived hard to meet them to the maximum possible extent would ease the situations in many cases. (Dianne Hales, 2006, Sesame Workshop, “Sesame Street Parents”, ). MERITS AND DEMERITS OF THE CO-TEACHING METHODS: 1.One support one teach method: In this method one teacher concentrates on the lessons, while the other teacher moves around the class and provide support to the students individually. The supporting teacher has the proximity to all the students, which makes students feel that they are individually attended at the same time they are taught by the other teacher. The demerits of this system also prevail. Students’ perception of both the teachers at equal level is quite impossible. They are prone to consider one as a teacher and the other as his assistant. There is much possibility for students to get distracted from their learning, especially when the actions of teacher and the supporter drag the students in opposite directions.(James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Education Support Centre, “Co-teaching”, 18Aug 2006 ). While teaching science lessons in this model, the supporting teacher finds much time in evaluating the needs of the students, since the content teacher’s process drags almost all the students to his teaching. Only after absorbing his teachings in its entirety, the students are prone to raise doubts. During this time gap, the supporting teacher can assess the needs of the students individually and assist accordingly. In case of Mathematics, especially the imbibing of tables, the role of a content teacher is very minimum. Simple repetition of tables over and over again does not require any inquisitive attempts on the part of students. Hence the load on both the teachers is relatively less, in case of tables imbibing, when compared with teaching of mathematics involving calculations and derivations. Teaching calculation process to the students involves equal sharing of work between both the teachers. They must follow one another at various situations depending upon the students’ conception of the contents. The content teacher may have to wait until the supporter accomplishes his job of bringing the students to the same level of understanding. Likewise, the supporting teacher may at times have to wait till the students grasp the contents with or without doubts. 2.Station teaching: In this model, the students are divided into smaller groups under the supervision of teacher or bright student or some times parents. The groups are shifted on rotational basis so that learning process is given more attention. Students get free mobility among themselves and feel free to ask questions and get their doubts clarified. As the class is split into smaller groups, the teacher finds it easy to instill curriculum oriented assignments among the students and some behavioral developments in them. Extreme planning, space and tolerance over increased noise are the negative side of this model.( James Madison University, 2006). Teaching Mathematics in this model is considerably easy for a teacher, as he can assess and classify the needs of the students, thereby he can conveniently shift those students to the apt group, where the students get enlightened in an atmosphere of peer sharing. It is enough if he teaches only once or twice to the level of least capable student, from which the relatively bright students get on well. Instilling Science formulas and contents in this model involves greater responsibility for the teacher. The doubt of a student, when not cleared by the group leader, must necessarily be done away with by the teacher in charge. 3.Parallel teaching: This model is analogous to station teaching method only in the aspect of splitting the class population. Usually two teachers teach the same lesson at the same pace to the equally divided group of students. The main benefit of this method is that teachers are able to pay increased attention over smaller population of a class. Behavior problems with students can be lessened in this model. (Elaine E. Daack, 1999). Planning among the teachers must go together to achieve identical goals at both groups. Noise level, which is natural to be at higher level when compared to single class room accommodation must be handled with patience and prudence.( James Madison University,2006 ). Whether Mathematics or Science lessons taught under this process, the overall effectiveness of this model varies with the modalities adopted by the different teachers. Before arriving at the conclusion that the students have come to a same level of understanding, both the teachers should discuss the results of their teaching. They should compulsorily come to a consensus. On placing each other’s evaluation alone, they can satisfy that they have attained identical goals. This is because, the system is almost akin to managing a class by a single teacher, the only difference is in the reduced number of students. Whether Mathematics or Science make no difference in this model. 4.Alternate teaching: While a teacher in this model takes charge of a greater portion of students and enrich them with content knowledge, the other teacher attends a smaller group of the class separated on different composition for pre-teaching, re-teaching and supplementing. Although the content knowledge of the teachers is required to be equal, the load on the part of the supporting teacher who mans the smaller group is relatively higher. The teacher has to enrich the content knowledge in the smaller group of students who are unable to grasp and bring them at the pace equivalent to the larger group of students. Constant planning among the teachers is a must in this model. Segregation of students has to be done diligently so that they are not grouped in terms of cleverness and less intelligence.( James Madison University, 2006). Science teaching in this model can be achieved relatively fast. If students with difficulties are grouped together in smaller groups under the teacher who attempts re-teaching and supplementation, the job is easily done. Mathematics and related formulas are taught in this model in a strategic way to make all the students feel that they are given equal importance and attention. Once the entire class seem to arrive at a similar plane of understanding, the method of station teaching can be adopted, in which the students swap their knowledge of mathematical understanding among themselves. This type of switching over from one method to another, although consumes much time, is found to give better yields. 5.Team teaching: This method involves simultaneous teaching by two teachers at the same time for the entire class room. Extensive planning alone can lead to a good team teaching. In this model the running of a class would look like a discussion chamber. Both the teachers are perceived as equals by the students. The active roles of the equally knowledgeable teachers reduces the behavioral snags among the students with disabilities, if any. (James Madison University, 2006). Teaching of Science lessons is the best suitable subject under this model. Students acquire more knowledge from two teachers at the same time. Since the difference of opinions, if any among the teachers are resolved on the spot, the students get a clear picture of their scientific exposure. Students usually feel the never ending thirst for knowledge on science is considerably quenched in this model. Teaching Mathematics and related problems either places both the teachers at work at the same time or at rest at the same time. It means that on understanding the concepts of Mathematical formulas, the students are prone to plunge into solving problems by their own. This is the time when both the teachers can take a mini rest. For mathematics too, this model is a best one; because, when a student comes up with a strange third way of solution, it adds up to the brightness of the entire class. SUCCESS OF THE CO-TEACHING PROCESS: Planning, disposition and evaluation among the teachers are the key factors that accelerate success. There can not be two opinions on the terms of planning. Co-teaching teachers or staff must plan each and every stage of their teaching process and supporting process. Action plans of both the participants that go along with each other fetches nice results. Two teachers with different philosophies and ideals can not be the members of a team. Sorting the perspectives on issues like fairness, grading , behavior management and classroom management before starting team teaching renders the team a best one. Allowing sufficient time for planning and individual/group autonomy among the team leads towards hitting the right target of imparting fair education to all the students including those with disabilities.( Lisa Dieker, 2005). As teaching is the process that brings learners to the Truth or at least near to the Truth, one has to keep in mind that Truth does not reside with any individual. Despite the flexibility of the model, team teaching embraces failure merely due to lack of planning and deficient coordination. Thus team teaching has to be evaluated as such, sans any over weighing or under weighing. (Ingrid Shafer, 2001). CONCLUSION: By inclusion every child is made to get proper education. Paying special attention to the children with disabilities does in no way deviate from the general principle of maintaining uniformity among children. Engaging special educators thus becomes an inevitable part of providing education to children who are included in general pool of students. Harnessing all possible methods to bring them to the level of normal students can not be ruled out on the ground of maintaining parity. Efficient and extensive planning by the team members is a highly critical aspect of team teaching. Before starting team teaching issues like, classroom space, materials, allotting time frame for team members must be addressed, discussed and arrived at a decision acceptable by all the members of the team. Usually teachers with similar or identical philosophies and values constitute a best team. Because they are able to easily identify the unique needs of the students in the course of their shared teaching process. (Alan Engle, 2006) Creation of IEP (Individualized Education Program) is one among such tools that is invariably be made use of in case of dealing with disabled students. While assessing the special needs of the students, teachers, parents, staff and students must assemble to arrive at a candid picture of what the student needs. Each student should have an IEP drawn in fitness to his needs. (Lisa Küpper, 2000) The parents have the right to accept or refuse the terms of IEP. U.S. Department of Education has issued a Guide to the IEP that envisages the procedures for writing an IEP, implementation of IEP and reviewing and revising of IEP. Regarding placement of students, no IEP should go away from the provisions of IDEA, which stipulates that it must be seen that students are placed in least restrictive environment (LRE). IDEA asserts that to the maximum possible extent students should be imparted education along with students who do not have any disabilities. An effective IEP being the outcome of a team work, when framed correctly, obviously improves the teaching and learning results. * * * * * Works cited – Alan Engle, 2006, “Team Teaching”, Retrieved on 28/0/06 Dianne Hales, 2006, Sesame Workshop, “Sesame Street Parents”, Retrieved on 30/08/06 Elaine E. Daack, 1999, “Preparing For Inclusion”, Retrieved on 26/08/06 Ingrid Shafer,2001, “Team Teaching: Education for the Future” Retrieved on 26/08/06 James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Education Support Centre, “Co-teaching”, 18Aug 2006 Retrieved on 26/08/06 Kathey Kearney, 1996, “Highly Gifted Children in Full Inclusion Classrooms”, Retrieved on 30/08/06 Lisa Dieker, 2005, “An Introduction to Co-operative Teaching”, Retrieved on 26/08/06 Lisa Küpper, 2000, “A Guide to the Individualized Education Program”, Office of the Special Education Research Services, U.S. Department of Education Retrieved on 26/08/06 Read More